Forum:Date of Voyager's return
Discussions Explanation: Seeing as this still seems to be a recurring topic, I've condensed all 6 related discussions into one forum to make a single viewing/discussion for future reference. --Alan 21:36, 26 September 2008 (UTC) talk:USS Voyager As I have commented elsewhere, I have noticed that is is accepted that Voyager returned home in 2377. Where is this mentioned - as in , Neelix commented that they were celibrating the 315th anniversary of First Contact - wouldn't that place the year as 2378? July 5, 2004 : This seems consistent with the Star Trek website. They seem to imply that Endgame crossed into 2378. ::Voyager's Season 1 was in [2371. Add seven years to that (seven seasons), and you get 2378 indeed. You reference to the 315th birthday of First Contact is good evidence. Ottens 12:59, 6 Jul 2004 (CEST) :::Surely it goes like this (remembering that four season two episodes were produced for season one and have season one Stardates, they aired correctly in the UK) - Season 1 - mid-2371, Season 2 - 2372, Season 3 - 2373, Season 4 - 2374, Season 5 - 2375, Season 6 - 2376, Season 7 - 2377. Voyager still follows the TNG/DS9 convention of having the second digit in the stardate increase by 1 every year, and the stardate for Endgame was 54973.4, which is a 2374 Stardate. Alex Peckover 13:07, Jul 6, 2004 (CEST) :::: 2377 stardate actually but I see what you mean. Of course it's possible that the events of Endgame cross over into the 55000 stardates, thereby starting another year. The fact that the anniversary is mentioned in "Homestead" is difficult but perhaps not impossible to rectify. ::::: Or that Series 1 was 2371-2372, S2 was 2372-2373...S7 would be 2377-2378. And the idea that the digits changed every season doesn't necessarily mean the year changes every year at that point, we should all know that stardates aren't consistent! MiChaos 22:26, 6 Jul 2004 (CEST) ::::::I always got the impression that was several months after . It would be possible then, that the episode was in 2078. ::Now that seems somewhat unlikely. :P Ottens 20:13, 27 Sep 2005 (UTC) :::::::I assume (s)he means 2378. I agree with MiChaos - weebiloobil 16:58, 5 August 2006 (UTC) ::::::::Well, according to the VOY Season 1 DVD extras, they specify the year as 2377 for Season 1. Not sure how that fits with the canon course, but if you load in the extras disk and look at the Janeway Interview, you'll note the interview date (97), and then a year scroll to 2377 for Season 1. Which if true, means the stardate years are 2377 to 2383. DCody 07:38, 30 November 2006 (UTC) :::::::::It does not work on so many levels. By 2377, there was no Maquis to speak of, they had long since been killed or destroyed by the Jem'Hadar. The uniforms seen in Voyager had been retired pretty much by 2373. We see an Admiral Kathryn Janeway back at Starfleet in 2379. I'm sure there are many more problems, but those are some glaring ones. The DVD extras either say something different, or are flat wrong. --OuroborosCobra talk 09:21, 30 November 2006 (UTC) talk:2377 As mentioned by myself on numerous occasions, "Homestead" is established to be on the 315th anniversairy of First Contact, making it, and subsequent episodes, 2378. How many of these episodes would be in that year, as opposed to 2377? MiChaos 19:56, 12 Jul 2004 (CEST) talk:Star Trek: Voyager I know I've commented on this issue too many times, but I think it needs to be sorted once and for all - in what year did return to Earth? It is, to my mind, obvious that it ended in 2378 - in "Homestead", Neelix comments that they're celebrating the 315th anniversary of First Contact - then clarified as the anniversary of Tuvok's ancestors arrival on Earth. This places the year of that episode and subsequent ones in 2378. However, throughout this site, the events keep being listed in 2377 - what am I missing? The reason I ask this again is that I'm on the verge of changing every reference to Voyager's return to 2378, but I don't want to if others keep changing it back or if I'm wrong. Help! -- MiChaos 17:57, 14 Aug 2004 (CEST) :You're right though.. we've confirmed that those episodes must indeed take place in 2378, however, many have missed the "Homestead" reference and continue to perpetuate the incorrect date. -- Captain Mike K. Bartel 04:55, 15 Aug 2004 (CEST) ::What about the fact that each season in modern Star Trek history has been during one calendar year. The stardates begin and end in that calander year as well. I don't see why we should change are assumptions simply because of a single mistake in one episode. Anyone else with me?Ryan123450 08:13, 18 Aug 2004 (CEST) :::I disagree. Find me any reference to the idea that each season takes place in one calendar year. I don't think there's anything really supporting that - in fact, starting a new year somewhere mid-season would solve more problems than it creates. This is an assumption as well, of course, but at least we shouldn't call something an "error" just because it doesn't fit our previous assumptions. -- Cid Highwind 10:04, 18 Aug 2004 (CEST) talk:2378 I don't see how these episodes take place in 2378, as Endgame's stardate is 54xxx.x. As we know, all stardates within one year start with the same two digits. Stardates from earlier episodes in the seventh season also start with 54. Starting from 41xxx in 2364, 54 makes 2377. According to the stardates given, all of season seven takes place in 2377. ExAstris 17:52, 9 May 2005 (UTC) :Although we can infer that the Voyager episode "Homestead" took part in 2378, on the 315th anniversary of First Contact, it isn't clear how many of the previous episodes may also have taken place in the same year. -- rebelstrike 18:01, 9 May 2005 (UTC) I can read, thank you. And that may very well have been in the plot, but it wouldn't be the first time writers make a mistake like that. I would say the stardate certainly takes precendence over any plot occurrences. ExAstris 18:18, 9 May 2005 (UTC) :I don't think the stardates DO take precedent. There is no canon explanation to how they work. -- rebelstrike 18:23, 9 May 2005 (UTC) No argument there. But such an explanation is included in the Star Trek Chronology (1996 edition, appendix I), written by the folks who actually work on Star Trek. Many ages and dates mentioned on the shows have been consistent with the system as laid out in that book, and as such, the stardate VS plot situation on "Homestead" creates an inconsistency at the very least. ExAstris 18:39, 9 May 2005 (UTC) ::I have to agree with Rebelstrike. Although the Chronology might be written by people on Star Trek, that makes the source quasi-canon at best. Canon has to be strictly defined as what is on screen. This quote is, that information isn't. ::And I don't believe the 'one year = 1,000 stardates' can work at all. If it did, stardates would have had to come in the 2320's, which clearly it didn't. The stardate system is full of contradictions and inconsistencies, and I believe that assuming the change of the 1,000's doesn't mean the change of a year solves more of these inconsistencies than not. ::Simply though, this is an issue which we just simply don't have an answer. But this quote appeared in the episode; I'm inclined to accept it as canon unless someone can give me an on-screen canon evidence to contradict it. What do other people think? -- MiChaos 22:14, 9 May 2005 (UTC). About starting in the 2320's -- I agree they clearly didn't start then, but the system may have been changed, resetted or adapted or whatever by that time. And as Gene Roddenberry once said, inconsistencies in stardates reflect our limited understanding of our space-time continuum. But perhaps this is a discussion more fitted for the stardate page :) On the topic at hand - I'm willing to accept the plot takes place in 2378, but to me personally, the stardate refers to 2377. We have no on-screen evidence to prove or disprove this, so I guess it'll remain a matter of personal conviction. -- ExAstris 18:04, 10 May 2005 (UTC) :::Let us not forget that changes in the stardate may come about due to the relativistic effects of space travel, namely the speed of the vessel and its location in the galaxy. And since is in the Delta Quadrant, thousands of light years away from Federation space, it is possible that the stardate would be different as a result. --Shran 04:30, 30 Jun 2005 (UTC) :::: But wouldn't this render the stardate system very incorrect and unpractical? If say, a series of vessels meet up with eachother and they have widely differing stardates, wouldn't that lead to much confusion? Everyone would be operating with different numbers. 14:30, 2 April 2007 (UTC) :::::This site widely believe in the one year, one season logic, For TNG this is great, not so great for TOS. Anyways, Another assumption is that all episodes of a season take place in the same year. Truth is the years seem to follow a Season more or less. Starting in the latter half of a year, ending in the next year. In TOS they show this in Charlie X a Thanksgiving episode, then the fact that they recently had a Christmas party in "Dagger of the Mind", in TNG we have Data's Day which takes place on October 24th 2367. As the 11th episode of the season that only leaves bout 2 months for the rest of the 15 episodes of the season. :::::The truth is I believe the year of Data's Day ends between Data's Day and QPid because of the mention of Picard's trip to Risa last year. Unfortunately this even works to saying a season resents on year since "Captain's Holiday" was in the previous season. But even Enterprise works off the season year split theory of mine. The problem with integrating this into Memory Alpha is we don't have enough data to split every season, even the split I brought up with QPid gives you 8 episodes to figure out the split, also knowing that Captain's Holiday takes place in the same year as Data's Day. If you understand that great, if not I can make a calendar. --TOSrules 04:46, 24 March 2006 (UTC) ::::::someone has recently placed "endgame" into 2378. are we agreed that this is incorrect? Deevolution 08:15, 5 August 2006 (UTC) :::Pretty much. The episode clearly stated they had been in the Delta Quadrant for seven years, and two episodes prior took place on the 315th anniversary of First Contact (2063 + 315 = 2378). There's really no way anyone can disagree with it since it's canon and since stardates have been proven to be unreliable in telling when an episode is set. --From Andoria with Love 08:51, 5 August 2006 (UTC) talk:Fen Domar *"According to the non-canonical (but Paramount-endorsed) book Star Trek: Star Charts by Geoffrey Mandel, by 2378 Voyager had traversed almost the entire Delta Quadrant and was only a few light years away from crossing into the Beta Quadrant. From this we can deduce that the Fen Domar are most likely a Beta Quadrant civilization, though their territory still remains quite distant from Federation space."" I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but non-canon sources cannot be used as the basis for such information in articles. This is not only from a non-canon source, but is speculation based on what was said in that source. The reference to the race being from the Beta Quadrant needs to be removed, but a note stating that what the Star Charts said and that the race may be from the Beta Quadrant can remain. --From Andoria with Love 07:15, 28 May 2006 (UTC) :I will change the article to make it clearer that the Fen Domar may be either a Beta Quadrant or a Delta Quadrant civilization. I don't see why it was necessary, however, to change "around 2381" to "a few years after 2378" (I disagree about the date that you're giving for Voyager s return home, but I will post a very long article about that in Ten Forward in due time). It's basically the same thing, if you assume that "a few" means three to five. --Antodav 08:03, 28 May 2006 (UTC) ::Actually, there's no need to refer to the Star Charts because a map is seen in that shows that Voyager is in fact pretty close to the border to the Beta Quarant by that episode here It's all in the screencap analysis on Talk:Beta Quadrant. --Jörg 08:54, 28 May 2006 (UTC) :So we have a canon source for Voyager being near the BQ border in that episode. Well that's excellent. I think that justifies putting the Fen Domar in the Beta Quadrant, in that case.--Antodav 20:58, 28 May 2006 (UTC) Hey, it's not my date. Alas, the year of 2378 for the final season of Star Trek: Voyager is canon, as "Homestead" (two episodes prior) takes on the 315th anniversary of Zefram Cochrane's First Contact with the Vulcans. That momentous occasion took place on 5 April 2063. 2063 + 315 = 2378. Also, I beleive the final episode specifically states that had been in the Delta Quadrant for seven years at that point; the ship was sent there in 2371. --From Andoria with Love 08:07, 28 May 2006 (UTC) :I will review "Homestead" to see about the exact date when the episode is set. However, if you go by the stardate given in , (which is set before the movie , which takes place in early 2371) Voyager was launched in late 2370, not 2371. I've always believed that the ship arrived home around May of 2377.--Antodav 08:40, 28 May 2006 (UTC) I know, but stardates are so untrustworthy and not exactly something to go on when trying to tie episodes down to a specific year. Since part of the stardate apparently relies on a ship's location in the galaxy, one might theorize that the stardates there ran a bit differently than they did in the Alpha and Beta Quadrants. One can also theorize that the time between each episode in the series took longer than those of the other series. --From Andoria with Love 08:49, 28 May 2006 (UTC) :Well FRELL. Neelix did say "315th anniversary." I can't believe I missed that. That means that my entire stardate system for the 24th Century is wrong. That's really quite ironic, actually, considering that I based it off of "Homestead" in the first place. I'll have to rewrite the whole dang thing. Now it seems like the Voyager crew were not rounding up when they said they had been there for seven years, but actually rounding down. Hopefully I can find a way to keep this from affecting Commodore.--Antodav 08:49, 28 May 2006 (UTC) :Also, why was it necessary for the speculation about Seven of Nine's death to be removed? It was based entirely on canon statements made in the episode, though Janeway was somewhat more specific about Seven of Nine's death than she was about the date of the battle with the Fen Domar. Still, "a few years" could very easily be "three years." I don't see that that is an unreasonable speculation, certainly not any more so than that Carol Marcus is the "little blonde lab technician" or that the Battle of Cheron was the final battle of the Romulan Wars which led to the founding of the Federation. I was under the impression that there was room for reasonable speculation on Memory Alpha, as long as I made it clear that it was in fact speculation, used the appropriate formatting (intented and italicized) and cited my sources. Completely removing the possibility that the away mission Seven of Nine was killed on may have somehow had something to do with the Fen Domar was I think a bit unnecessary.--Antodav 08:03, 28 May 2006 (UTC) Ah, now see, I never thought of that. I suppose that is possible... so, yeah, that part can be re-added, I suppose. For the record, though, there is still no hard evidence that the Earth-Romulan War occured before the founding of the United Federation of Planets. The fact that the war was between Earth and the Romulans simply suggests that it was. Thus far, the only specifics as to when the E-R war took place is an illegible readout seen in , which places the war between 2156 and 2160. Because this readout was simply a few snippets from the first (now obsolete and inaccurate) edition of the Star Trek Chronology and because the readout was never meant to be read, this evidence should be taken with a grain of salt. The wars were never referenced in , supposedly set after the wars. Also, the an early storyline for would have had the wars taking place after the Federation was founded. So, yeah... no hard evidence exists yet, although I, personally, would like to believe it was before the UFP was founded in 2161. --From Andoria with Love 08:19, 28 May 2006 (UTC) talk:Homestead Does this episode take place in 2377? Neelix says at the start of the episode that they're celebrating 315 years since First Contact - surely that places this ep on April 5th, 2378? -- MiChaos 23:00, 1 Jul 2004 (CEST) :OK, so, in "Homestead", Neelix says that that episode takes place on the 315th Anniversary of the Vulcans' First Contact with Earth. According to , that event occured on April 5, 2063. Therefore, it is canon that that episode takes place in the year 2378. Numerous Paramount-authorized and approved materials do contradict this, including Star Trek: Star Charts by Geoffrey Mandel, but those sources are not canon. So, unless "Homestead" takes place in some sort of bizzare timewarp, there's absolutely no way to get around the fact that on April 5, 2378, Voyager was still in the Delta Quadrant. :The problem with this is that it ruins the entire TNG-era timeline. :If "Homstead" is set in 2378, then "Caretaker" is set in (late) 2371. If "Homestead" is set in 2371, then according to the stardates Generations is set in 2372. This means that First Contact is set in 2374, Insurrection is set in 2376, and Nemesis is set in 2380 (assuming that the length of time between the release dates of the movies is the same as the amount of time that passed between the movies themselves). It also means that for more than an entire year, from May 2370 until January 2372, we have no idea what the crew of the were doing. There's an entire 8th Season now of TNG that is unaccounted for. :That much I could live with, even if it means that Worf was away for an extremely long time before finally joining the crew of Deep Space 9--were it not for the fact that it also messes up the stardate system. We know that passage of approximately one year is indicated in a stardate by adding 1 to the second digit from the left of the stardate (and thusly, that the passage of a decade is indicated by adding 1 to the first digit of the stardate). The stardates, however, do not allow for a missing year; TNG Season 7 ends on Stardate 479xx.x, and Generations, as quoted by Picard, is set on and around Stardate 48650.1. that indicates the passage of less than a year. :This could be resolved by shifting the entire TNG timeline forward by one year, meaning that took place in 2364, not 2363...however, if we do that, then suddenly takes place in 2365, not 2364, as Data specifically said it did--and Data can't be wrong. Furthermore, the Star Trek: The Next Generation Technical Manual also lists 2363 as the year of the 's launch. Of course, the TNG Tech Manual isn't canon. :There are two ways I can see to resolve this dillemma: :*1) Neelix was an idiot, and he said "315th Anniversary" when he meant to say "314th". He's not human, after all, or even a citizen of the Federation...how much does he really know about Federation history? Of course, there's the problem then that no one bothered to correct him...maybe they were all too drunk to notice he'd made an error, maybe none of them knew their own history too well either, or maybe they were all just willing to let it slide to save Neelix the embarassment...but the fact that even Tuvok didn't correct him is quite surprising. :*2) Data was malfunctioning in "The Neutral Zone," suffering from whatever virus caused him to say that he was part of the "Class of '78" in "Encounter at Farpoint." Again, though, why Picard and Beverly didn't correct Data and immediately have him taken away for a diagnostic is beyond me. Then again, Riker didn't seem to wonder what the heck Data meant in "Encounter at Farpoint" either. :I'm more inclined to believe that Neelix was wrong than that Data was wrong. One of these two "canonical" dates however has to be thrown out. Either Voyager returned home in May of 2377, or the Enterprise-D was launched in 2364; there's no way to have both here. If you can come up with a better solution than the one I just described, please do let me know. --Antodav 10:06, 28 May 2006 (UTC) ::As explained above, stardates are not a good way to pin down an Earth date due to the incongruities inherent in the system. Lastly, we're not here to argue with what is or is not canon or to speculate as to what is correct or is not. We're here to state facts as presented in Star Trek and simply note (apparent) errors where we find them, giving the breifest and most plausible possible reason for them if necessary. Data said in that the year was 2364, therefore the year was 2364; Neelix said in "Homestead" that it was 315 years after First Contact, therefore that year was 2378; Picard stated in that Riker had been his first officer for 15 years, therefore that film was set in 2379; Icheb said in that James T. Kirk's five-year mission aboard the [[USS Enterprise (NCC-1701)|USS Enterprise]] ended in 2270, therefore it ended in 2270. As I believe is stated in our , everything stated by the characters is the truth until later contradicted, after which we note the errors. Speculation as to why these errors exist, if at all needed, should be believable, to-the-point, and very brief. And that's... pretty much it. So, yeah, there's no need to rant about when the series or movies take place; that's already been answered. There's no getting around that. Not on Memory Alpha, anyway. --From Andoria with Love 19:35, 28 May 2006 (UTC) :I wasn't ranting. But I will move the discussion to a different forum. --Antodav 20:58, 28 May 2006 (UTC) By the way, 15 years from 2363, the year that the was launched, is 2378. If we go by Picard's statement in Nemesis then that is the year that movie takes place, not 2379. --Antodav 21:11, 28 May 2006 (UTC) ::Eh, I just automatically call anything longer than a few sentences ranting. Nothing personal. As for the 15 year thing, Picard hadn't taken command of the ship until 2364, when is set. Riker became his first officer in that episode, as well. 2364 + 15 = 2379. --From Andoria with Love 05:33, 29 May 2006 (UTC) :::We can also imagine that Voyager's stardate system is not updated like the starships in the Federation. In , the Enterprise-D had to update its starbase system with a time-base beacon because of a temporal loop, so you can imagine the divergence for the Voyager who did not contact such Federation beacon for a few years. In that way, even if the Voyager crew perceived 7 years, 8 years could have passed in the Federation. Contact was established with the Federation in 2375, so they could know the exact earth dates, but correcting 7 years of false stardates would be more confusing for the specificity of Voyager who's lost in the Delta Quadrant, and it could be subject to many updates in the future, so they would rather not have updated the stardates, even if they know the exact Earth date. - From Cardassia with pain 12:40, 12 January 2007 (UTC) ::::I'm not entirely convinced that "Homestead" and beyond took place in any other year than 2377.The stardate scheme, while completely random at times, has been consistent in each series with Stardate 41xxx.x = year 1 of TNG or 2364, and Stardate 54xxx.x = year 14 of TNG or 2377. ::::Based on Riker's logs, the best stardate that corresponds with Battle of Wolf 359 is Stardate 44002.3-- which is less than 6 days into the year 2367. However, in , Sisko states that the day prior to Stardate 47329.4 "was the fourth anniversary of the massacre at Wolf 359." Now considering Wolf 359 took place less that a week into 2367, this would indicate that "Second Sight" actually took place 'less than a week into' 2371, yet we still recognize it as 2370, along with the rest of DS9 Season 2. ::::Now consider the following: the reason why "Homestead" is mistook as taking place in 2378 is because of Neelix's line, "In honor of the 315th anniversary of his ancestors' arrival on Earth." The verbage is nearly identical, and as a result we've deemed this and subsequent episodes as taking place in 2378, rather than the same year that the rest of VOY Season 7 takes place in. This seems to contradict our approach or reasoning with Sisko's reference above and why that is instead overlooked as being "inconsistent." (Oh, and it should also be noted that the month of April was never uttered in this episode.) ::::It too should be noted that this episode took place on Stardate 548xx.x-- nearly 4 years after apparently took place-- Stardate 508xx.x. This leads me to surmise (okay, maybe speculate) that the writers may have mistook the referenced stardate in ST:FC as being the general stardate-time frame of First Contact, and that time travel is some sort of lateral move through time...Stardate 508xx = April 2373 <--> April 2063. ::::Whatever the case may be, we either need to return "Homestead" and those episodes that follow it back to 2377 or we bump Second Sight and all those episodes that follow it up to 2371. Either way, we need to be consistent and not set ourselves up for having "double standards." --Alan del Beccio 09:35, 5 February 2007 (UTC) ::Well, the pure hard fact is that "Homestead" – and thus, the few episodes following "Homestead" – are canonically established to have taken place 315 after 2063. So, there's not really anything we can do about those (i.e. moving them to 2377) without going against canon, which would be a violation of this site's goals. At present, however, is currently listed as taking place in 2370 when the dialogue states that it takes place four years after , set right smack at the beginning of 2367. Therefore, either the date for "Second Sight" and the following episodes must change or the date for "BoBW" and subsequent episodes must change. That's gonna cause quite a bit of chaos, but we've dealt with chaos before and if we want things completely accurate, one of those two ways will have to be the way to go. --From Andoria with Love 04:32, 19 February 2007 (UTC) :::::Perhaps Jake and Ben had lost some years traveling at near relativistic velocities? It seems to be a common problem that people end up experience time faster than others -- remember also that Molly O'Brien aged a year or two extra at certain points also? :::::Perhaps the whole deal was the result of a runabout-time portal collision :) -- Captain M.K.B. 05:27, 19 February 2007 (UTC) -- Captain M.K.B. 05:27, 19 February 2007 (UTC) ::It's a distinct possibility, but alas, speculation. ;) As for my above rant, Alan brought up a few good points last night on IRC; one of them is that fact that what this essentially comes down to is moving 18 DS9 Season 2 episodes back one year or moving 3 VOY Season 7 episodes up one year. Given that, I think I prefer the latter. ::Now about that time portal idea... :D --From Andoria with Love 19:34, 19 February 2007 (UTC) ::::::Some anon changed the date of "Homestead", , and to "21 November 2377", "13 November 2377", and "21 December 2377" respectively from "2378". They had previously edited the BG notes of this episode to add: ::::::*"However, this appears to be a continuity error, as the stardate of 54868.6 roughly corresponds to November 13, 2377, and all other stardates in this season begin with the digits "54", corresponding to the year 2377." ::::::What's the justification from this exact stardate to date correlation? -- Sulfur 08:54, 10 April 2007 (UTC) :::::::I'm guessing they didn't check the talk page nor read the forum entry noted near the top of this page about the date. I'm all for changing it back myself. --Maestro4k 12:31, 10 April 2007 (UTC) Redux In Star Trek: Star Charts the route of Uss Voyager page has the last year as 2377.Memory Beta as the date of Voyager's return to earth as December 2377. : In that case I will refer you to the above section. Simply put, that's not a canon source, something MB thrives on. --Alan 00:56, 27 September 2008 (UTC) In Star Trek: Voyager books Homecoming,The Farther Shore, Spirit walk book 1 old wounds and spirit walk book 2 enemy of my enemy takes place in 2378,that would mean Voyager returned to earth in 2377. User:Captain Typhuss Nerys :Books are not canon here, please review our before making any more changes (based on your sources) or continuing this discussion.--Alan 01:12, 27 September 2008 (UTC) ::While Memory Beta allows (and focuses) on non-canon sources such as novels, Memory Alpha does not. My statement should not be construed as saying one is better or worse than the other, simply different (and complementary, in fact). --OuroborosCobra talk 01:20, 27 September 2008 (UTC) use your fingers,2371,1st year,2372,2nd year,2373,3rd year,2374,4th year,2375,5th year,2376,6th year,2377,7th year.user Captain Typhuss Nerys ::There is a LOT of conversation, if you look above, that isn't as childish as finger counting, and has far more canon basis. --OuroborosCobra talk 01:29, 27 September 2008 (UTC) 2371 is the 1st year,right,2372,is the second year right,2373,is the 3rd year right,2374,is the 4th year right,2375,is the 5th year right,2376 ,is the 6th year right,2377,is the 7th year,right :You're missing the point. It was explicitly stated in "Homestead" that the date of that episode marked 315th anniversary of first contact. 2063 + 315 = 2378. --Alan 01:37, 27 September 2008 (UTC) in the star trek voyager episode the disease,harry said i have served on this ship for 5 years,the year in the episode is 2375,Voyager would only be in the delta quadrant for two more years,Voyager would get home in 2377. ::Obviously Voyager was in the Delta Quadrant for more than two years after that point. --OuroborosCobra talk 01:50, 27 September 2008 (UTC) You win,i don't care if it was 2377 or 2378,i'm done. : This, of course, isn't taking any consideration for 'rounding'... which would still allow "The Disease" to fall within the "finger count" timeline. This of course all goes without saying that this "canon" approach contradicts our "other" approach on Sisko's timeline comment in ...which is following the finger counting system rather than the "canon" approach. --Alan 02:25, 27 September 2008 (UTC)